{
  "id": 8562760,
  "name": "DELMER TAYLOR v. GREENSBORO NEWS COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. Greensboro News Co.",
  "decision_date": "1983-01-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 363PA82",
  "first_page": "459",
  "last_page": "460",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "307 N.C. 459"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "291 S.E. 2d 852",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.C. App. 426",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524727
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/57/0426-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 146,
    "char_count": 1770,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.813,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3382212817973502e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6306043325305838
    },
    "sha256": "7535ec5172d2d6d6250f6d1123058c050d908c3e1c48994cb2502610d0fcfdd3",
    "simhash": "1:59b8ae3105012286",
    "word_count": 266
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:07:32.557624+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DELMER TAYLOR v. GREENSBORO NEWS COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThis is an action for libel. Both parties moved for summary judgment in the trial court on stipulated facts. The stipulation is set out in full and verbatim in the Court of Appeals\u2019 opinion. The Court of Appeals decided that the trial court correctly allowed defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment because on the stipulated facts plaintiff would not be able to show at trial that the allegedly defamatory statement was published with actual malice. After carefully reviewing the record and briefs and hearing oral arguments on the correctness of the Court of Appeals\u2019 decision, we are satisfied that we improvidently granted plaintiffs petition for further review and likewise improvidently denied defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss plaintiffs appeal. Our orders granting discretionary review and denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the appeal are vacated; and, because we discern no substantial constitutional question in the case, plaintiffs appeal is dismissed.\nDiscretionary review improvidently granted; plaintiffs appeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Anne R. Littlejohn for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter by Richard W. Ellis and Alan W. Duncan, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DELMER TAYLOR v. GREENSBORO NEWS COMPANY\nNo. 363PA82\n(Filed 11 January 1983)\nOn 21 September 1982 we granted plaintiffs petition for discretionary review, G.S. 7A-31(c), of a decision of the Court of Ape\u00e1is, 57 N.C. App. 426, 291 S.E. 2d 852 (1982), affirming summary judgment for defendant entered by Judge Collier at the 18 June 1981 Session of Guilford Superior Court, Greensboro Division. We likewise denied defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss plaintiffs appeal grounded on plaintiffs contention that a substantial constitutional question was involved in the case. G.S. 7A-30G).\nAnne R. Littlejohn for plaintiff appellant.\nSmith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter by Richard W. Ellis and Alan W. Duncan, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0459-01",
  "first_page_order": 487,
  "last_page_order": 488
}